Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton MSNBC Debate Back On

By Howard Kurtz
Brian Williams and Tim Russert must be relieved.

After threatening for days to back out of a scheduled MSNBC debate on Feb. 26, Hillary Clinton's campaign said
yesterday that she will show up for the Cleveland face-off against Barack Obama after all.

The Clinton camp said it might pull the plug after MSNBC correspondent David Shuster made his "pimped out" remark about Chelsea Clinton. As recently as Monday, after Shuster was suspended and he and network executives repeatedly apologized, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said he couldn't imagine his candidate participating in a debate on that cable network.

But Wolfson confirmed today that the debate, to be moderated by Williams and Russert, is back on. Maybe, in the wake of Clinton's wipeout yesterday in Maryland, Virginia and D.C., another shot at Obama looms larger for the Clintonites than their spat with MSNBC.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 13, 2008; 2:50 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Silver Lining for Clinton: Evangelical Support
Next: The GOP Favorite, McCain Lags Online

Comments

kzvfuno jobask
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/seroquel-side-effects-in-children.html seroquel side effects in children

Posted by: seroquel side effects in children | August 21, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

dyactw lstqny droef
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/is-effexor-a-ssri.html is effexor a ssri

Posted by: is effexor a ssri | August 18, 2008 5:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor side effects choleteral | August 18, 2008 5:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: antidepressants for anxiety | August 17, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

rxvd rtego yohci
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/wellbutrin-sr-and-side-effects-duration.html wellbutrin sr and side effects duration

Posted by: wellbutrin sr and side effects duration | August 17, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

sike qpyrt
http://idioyyinv.25am.com/effexor-withdrawal-sympotoms.html effexor withdrawal sympotoms

Posted by: effexor withdrawal sympotoms | August 16, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

amlpebj zgdcnmi
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/cymbalta-and-pain-management.html cymbalta and pain management

Posted by: cymbalta and pain management | August 16, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: queen levitra | August 16, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

etzaprg ymkgc cxardp
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/give-dog-prozac.html give dog prozac

Posted by: give dog prozac | August 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: zyban hats | August 15, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: zyban hats | August 15, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effectiveness propecia | May 11, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

twjcdyb utbp wbso
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4693 optimum propecia dosage

Posted by: optimum propecia dosage | May 11, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

rvjgosx dxfgc
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

rvjgosx dxfgc
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 100 er ultram | May 11, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: is ultram addictive | May 11, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: is ultram addictive | May 11, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: sale ultram | May 11, 2008 6:01 AM | Report abuse

lnmhtv eqwiuo czpdwq qhztbip
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4546 100mg er ultram

Posted by: 100mg er ultram | May 11, 2008 5:30 AM | Report abuse

lnmhtv eqwiuo czpdwq qhztbip
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4546 100mg er ultram

Posted by: 100mg er ultram | May 11, 2008 5:30 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram order cheap | May 11, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram order cheap | May 11, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

zvys ltfguh vlytnq
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4588 50 mg tablet ultram

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

cmay javnm jfzecwys ftqzwjrv whrefxlsj ciqy mduyxbrg http://www.yzwjitrv.myosbd.com

Posted by: rsomcqzv fkugiro | April 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

rulj jlzqyi zwunxa hnurycs dgzf ozcg oilzvqt

Posted by: wljzoqf adnyrjx | April 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Given that it is too late for the candidates to find another venue, I suppose I should be pleased that HRC has agreed to go ahead with whatever MSNBC can offer in lieu of a debate.

But, really, having MSNBC sponsor a debate is like having China host a human rights forum, like having a demented, brain injured child conduct environmental research.

MSNBC is pretty much off limits in my home, except to my daughter, who has been assigned to write an analysis of its election coverage. A good critical thinking assignment, on which she is progressing well.

Children should not confuse flabby old farts like Matthews and gorrillas like Schuster with talking heads, let alone commentators, given where their heads are situated.

The irony of all this sexism is that many women like me, under fifty, well educated, middle class, not the usual Clinton constiuencey, at least according to the media, are now Clinton supporters.

After Edwards dropped out, I began leaning toward Clinton, since she made clear what her platform was and since it was to the left of Obama. That the transnationally owned media, with its numerous corporate holdings and conservative Republican men supported Obama influenced me, as well, I confess. Ultimately it came down to a more humane immigration program, healthcare, the environment, and the unswerving dignity she maintained in the face of attacks by old farts and fartessas like Robin Givhans, Maureen Dowd, and Gail Collins. That she can take the heat is not news; that she can take an inferno is.

In the meantime, we have her opponent, who may, in fact, have a lot to over, in lieu of hope, the future, change, blah, blah, and blah with which he has relentlessly overwhelmed us. And now an "economic plan." Have you read it?

Posted by: observer12 | February 16, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse

adrienneforest get a clue please!


1. Experience... I guess all Hillary supporters want to include being the first lady of the former president and governor as legitimate experience. I live in New York State and the only reason that Hillary is in the NYS Senate is that there was no real opponent running against her.

2. Healthcare... well, to be honest this is the entire theme of her candidacy. The rest of her campaign is empty just like my pockets will be after she garnishes my wages for opting not to pay for something that is my choice to have.

3. Her Marriage to Bill Clinton is irrelevant and while I agree that Bill Clinton was a good president; I have to say that NAFTA is the biggest culprit behind illegal immigration into this country right now. American Farmers are putting Mexican farmers out of work because of the subsidies provided under NAFTA.

4. She's the underdog because Barack Obama is running a better and smarter campaign. She's a big girl; there is no need to make excuses based on gender. Bottom line is she's being thumped because of her arrogance and her phony political persona. I'm sure that she will cry in public again right before the primaries in OH, TX and PA. That fake molar revealing smile has to end. Obama is just more genuine.

5. Connections are the reason why Obama is out organizing Clinton and beating her by 20 and 30 percent margins.

6. The reason that you think or perceive that the media is backing Obama is because you have become too close to her campaign to be objective. One can cook up any number of reasons why, but remember this. Not long ago all the attention was on Hillary Clinton and her inevitable coronation into the Whitehouse. I was resigned to that fact until the Barack Obama movement proved there was a better choice.

7. Hillary Clinton tried her best to lie her way out of why she supported the war in Iraq during the debate before the South Carolina primary. Hillary Clintons' whole claim of having more experience is a huge lie. Besides name one politician, that does not stretch the truth!

8. Hillary only has answers about healthcare and nothing else. It's easy to parrot the message that is being drilled into your head. The fact is none of the candidates has time to go into detail about plans during a stump speech. One thing that Hillary needs to answer is why she made such bad administrative choices with her campaign. I'm not comfortable with a person who squanders $100 million dollars in money donated by the American voters. With that kind of irresponsible management, she would run up a deficit that rivals the bush administration.

9. Reading the last point makes me wonder why I even responded to what you said. Taking a myopic view is how America got its self into 8 years of pure hell with the Bush Administration. If a politician is too dumb to read the situation, said politician doesn't deserve to be in a position of power. 90 percent of the people who have responded here knew that Bush wanted to go to war. The Bill asked for authorization to go to war. Spin it however, you want. Hillary sold out for the sole purpose of protecting her political career. Her calculation backfired and Obama is reaping the benefits. The truth is Hillary Clinton equals more of the same garbage politics that have not served the American people.

Posted by: junkmailbox2 | February 14, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

A reality check for adrienneforest :

1. Experience...

...Yeah we know, she was married to a former President. She picked out the drapes. She talks about 35 years of service but no one can name one thing that came out of that...maybe she's speaking of her loyalty as an HBO subscriber.

2. Best health-care plan...

...I guess her second best is the one that set back the cause 20 years, some 15 years ago, with her secret meetings long before Cheney stole the idea.

3. Vision...

...Yeah, she's right up there with Stevie Wonder...she has such vision, she was forced to steal Obama's change mantra, and then last week, proving she has no shame, starting saying "Yes, We Can" in speeches in Virginia. That paid off, huh? Hillary Clinton = The New Coke.

4. She is married to Bill Clinton...

...the guy who let down millions of progressives because he couldn't keep his zipper up, and rode the Dot.com bubble in the same manner Bush rode the housing bubble.

5. She is the underdog...

...yeah, that's what happens when you are so Bush-like incompetent that you squander a 30-point lead in every state, turning that into a 30-point loss in many states, an unheard of 60-point swing in the wrong direction in one of the biggest political freefalls in US history.

6. Connections....

...Yep, and it's the reason she has received more Big Pharma and HMO Insurance money than any other single member of Congress. The reason Michael Moore declared in "Sicko" she went from being a health-care advocate to being a sellout.

And it's the reason she has had more lobbyists endorse her than all other campaigns combined...the likes of Carlyle Group (arms profiteers), Merck, Citibank...and more defense contractor money than even John McCain has received.

7. I believe the media is backing Obama...

...yeah, they all have families and kids and they care about their future as much as anyone else. And they aren't immune to the corrosive damage that 25 uninterrupted years of Bush-Clinton dynastic rule would do to the nation.

8. They have no dirt on her...

...They have so much dirt on her there aren't enough bulldozers in the country. Why is the GOP PRAYING she is the nominee?

The Clintonistas say she has been vetted, and she will beat McCain. She is now being vetted, which is why she is on the deck of the HMS Titanic, and forget handling McCain, she can't handle Obama!

9. Obama...has used cocaine. Funny they're not bringing it up...

...(no, only you pathetic Clintonistas)

10. I wish people weren't quite so shallow....

...no, only you pathetic Clintonistas.

11.Obama was caught lying on the campaigne trail recently...

...Hillary agreed to the Nevada caucus rules, before she was against them. She agreed to the Michigan delegate rules, before she was against them. She agreed to the Florida delegate rules, before she was against them.

She lied about the Levin amendment, that would have forestalled the Iraq war. There has never been a promise made by Shrillary that wasn't written on water or in the wind.

12. Hillary was asked during an extremely vunerable time to sign a bill...

...like the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution last fall. Not content with having 4000 US kids die needlessly, our treasury bankrupted to the tune of 3/4 trillion dollars, and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi's needlessly killed...

Hillary listened to MadMan Lieberman spout, "if economic sanctions don't stop the Iranians we really have to consider military action to stop them from doing it, perhaps by striking the bases around Tehran" and then SHE VOTED YES on the resolution!!!!

The woman has no learning curve. Apparently, her work in the Middle East is not yet done. Which is why Michael Moore declared last week that a vote for Hillary is an "immoral" act.

Gawd, what is wrong with you Clinton cultists. You may as well vote Republican...you're halfway there.

The new USA Today poll shows Hillary with a 48% favorable rating and a 49% unfavorable rating, the EXACT same it's been for the past three years.

She has a built-in ceiling of support which will never win a national election. All of you Clintonistas who are prepared to march the Party off a cliff in your twisted Joan of arc chromosome suicide march need to go find your own little Jonestown and spare the rest of us.

Posted by: filmex | February 14, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

I am supporting Hillary Clinton for several reasons:
1. Experience. (This is the first time I've noticed people suddenly don't seem to think that's worth anything.)
2. Best healthcare plan. (Obama's is failing in Illinois now.)
3. Vision. She has had her eye on healthcare for a long time. She has polished and plan and positioned herself to be able to really make the change.
4. She is married to Bill Clinton who was a fantastic president during his time of no war and no debt. May his strengths rub off.
5. She is the underdog. Simply because she is a woman. She has paved a way for our female race to participate in ways never before. I thank her for that.
6. Connections. I don't know about you but I do know my connections in life always have helped me. She has been around these people for a long time now. She is well loved and respected abroad.
6. I believe the media is backing Obama not quite subliminally but very close to it. It is in their best interest (right wing) to have Obama up against McCain. Hillary would and hopefully will pose of serious threat. They have no dirt on her. Obama on the other hand, we all know so little about except that he has used cocaine. Funny they're not bringing it up now....waiting till it will matter. People are swept into a media movement. I wish people weren't quite so shallow.
7.Obama was caught lying on the campaigne trail recently about passing an antinuclear bill that never passed.
8. Obama has questions and promises. Hillary offers answers and solutions.
9. Last but certainly not least, Hillary was asked during an extremely vunerable time to sign a bill to consider going to war if they sent in generals to examine the severity of a situation. She said yes, examine. Barack like to pretend like he said NO to this. I was most shocked when I discovered (because I was quite impressed by his "being right" speech) that he wasn't even on the senate during that vote. And when he did finally join in, he and Hillary had all the same votes on this subject. I personally think she made the wrong decision on hindsight, but I certainly understand how she could have. So i'm giving my support to Hillary Clinton. I think she is an amazing person and will do our country wonders.

Posted by: adrienneforest | February 13, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Senator Clinton has had a change of heart and is now choosing to participate in the MSNBC debate. I've read repeatedly over the last week just how offended the Clintons are by the unfair treatment Senator Clinton has received by that cable network. While I certainly understand the recent objection to David Shuster's characterization of her daughter's role in the campaign, how do you go from outrage, using every opportunity to convey hurt and anger to any news outlet willing to report it, to agreeing to participate in a debate hosted by the very news organization you've concluded is treating you so unfairly? Sure, the Senator's campaign is feeling the heat but why not continue to press the fairness issue with MSNBC. It might not be politically convenient to do so but it would be principled, and, likely, respected by many. After all, Senator Clinton reminded us that she's a Mom first and a politician second. There's noting wrong with that. The problem is that it's sometimes difficult to know what Senator Clinton's principles are and at what point she's willing to let politics override them? I want to believe in her as a person but I believe she's become yet another politician who too often puts politics over principles. If that's the case, it's not a stretch to assume that, if elected president, she'll also put politics over me. I'm tired of the same. This is the year I try something different.

Posted by: leo2thenet | February 13, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

I hope we all get Universal Health Care too. Well, as long as it doesn't require or mandate my wages to be GARNISHED if I choose to opt out because of other financial reasons. I would love to have universal health care, but not at the expense of my freedom of choice. This is America not Cuba or Russia!

Posted by: junkmailbox2 | February 13, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary takes an extra shot of HGH before each debate.

Posted by: info4 | February 13, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

BABucher: that sounds awfully narcissistic. It appears you may benefit from real universal health insurance coverage.

Posted by: sarasotan | February 13, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Good evening.

Now that Obama has trampled Mrs. Clinton in the last 8 state contests - he is legitimately the front runner.

As such, he must now pivot and begin to unfold his extensive and detained goals, objectives and plans for his administration.

Notwithstanding the snapping rabble of snarling rodents that populate these pages with their racial and religious intolerance, the serious Republicans who will surround and support McCain know full well that Obama is going to be tough.

What some of us Obama supporters do not know are some of the positions he's already taken on key issues.

Here are a couple of brief excerpts from a speech he gave about 6 months ago on a topic that is central to this campaign.

:
Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win
Washington, DC | August 01, 2007


After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda." ...............

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

(This last statement is the one that Hillary took Barack on about on live TV and declared that we would be breaking international custom and unstabalizing an ally regime if we struck deep into Pakistan without getting a buyin from Musharraf and other regional leaders.

To which Obama replied, "if I have actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, I will order a strike."


Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 13, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Wait.... so now the media's trying to coronate Obama? Hold up, the media, all along has held Hillary as the next QUEEN. Even in this newspaper, TODAY, they talk about what she has to do to get back into the race, and how the current system is working against her. It's all BS. Obama is winning hearts and minds, pardon the pun, and people don't just like the way he talks to them, they like what he's talking about, and the media, to an extent, is going to follow suit.

P.S. Why would you believe in Hillary over Obama? Each of the arguments anyone brings up there are easily shut down. It's almost common sense, now, to pick an Obama, which is why so many people are doing it. And if you dare bring race into this as argument, let it be known, the so-called visionary black guy wouldn't want to screw his race in the long-term by screwing over the country, in any way... so, you can count on that. There'll be all kinds of scrutiny there.

Posted by: fbutler1 | February 13, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

jes991
So have I. All that stands out is how she struggled to explain her Iraq vote, how she struggled to explain her support of Bloomberg's plan. It is Barack that is a good extempore speaker. Hillary seems to simply repeat talking points - universal health care, experience, ready on day 1, If I had known then what I know now.
That is not a debate. It is simply constant repetition of focus-grouped talking points. Don't get me wrong. There is a lot to admire in Mrs Clinton. She has worked hard, she has prepared assiduously, and she seems to know what she is talking about. But a good debater she is definitely not.

Posted by: middlerd | February 13, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

middlerd
I have watched almost every Democratic debate. Afterwards, the pundits on the cable networks always run their little horse race of who has won the debate and then the papers pick it up the next day. Hillary almost always comes up the winner. I think they split the LA debate as Hillary won the first part and Obama the second. That was unusual. The fact is that although Obama may be the better speaker, Clinton is the better debater.

Posted by: jes991 | February 13, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

To all those with the Hillary campaign who are threatening to vote for McCain if Obama prevails, I say Go Ahead! Any vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain. The Republicans can't wait to discuss her White House records (she is trying to withhold), her failed health care plan and her hidden financials.Hillary would be bad for the country. Obama is the best thing that's happened to the Democrats since JFK and he will Beat McCain.

Posted by: Marnie42 | February 13, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

This Mr. Barack HUSSEIN Obama--- Is he related to Osma or Sadam Hussein?

Does he belong to a Muslim religion or Muslim family. If he does then we can't TRUST him atall.

Muslims like Musharaff all they want to do is fleece USA and create trouble for the civilized world.

Posted by: dpduggal | February 13, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

jes991, which pundits are you talking about? I don't remember Mrs Clinton being very impressive in debates. I still remember her defense of her support of drivers license for undocumented workers as being pretty underwhleming.

Posted by: middlerd | February 13, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

frieda406
If what you say is true, then why do all the pundits always say that she wins all the debates on points. The truth is that Obama is a good reader from the teleprompter but not nearly as skillful as good a debater. They are after all, two different skill sets.

Posted by: jes991 | February 13, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

"Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea [Clinton] is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
Shuster's remark was said in pasive sentence without mentioning "by whom." Hillary's overreaction to that remark just perfected the passive sentence. To get free media attention, Hillary pimped out Chelsea.

Posted by: mkk0918 | February 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton generated as much sympathy as she could out of the MSNBC spat, then decided that she wanted to participate in the Cleveland event after all. Since Sen. Obama had agreed to participate in the debate, she was manipulating his willingness to participate for her own selfish purposes. If I were Sen. Obama, I would have said, "She doesn't want to participate, fine, let's cancel it."

Posted by: cpaustin408 | February 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

So when Barack Obama canvasses for African-American vote, that is racist but when Hillary targets Latin-American votes it isn't. When Obama waxes eloquent about anything that is fluff without substance, but when Hillary tries the same (in El Paso) that is a tactic. When Balz writes about Hillary's troubles, the media is virulently anit-Hillary, but when Krugman and Howard Kurtz(until recently) wrote in her support, that is ok. When Obama wont provide her with free publicity in the form of unlimited debates that is muzzling democracy, but when she refuses to take part in the MSNBC debate that is her taking a stance against Shuster's comments. When her campaign talks about Obama's kindergarten essay, or has a minion post an article about someone Obama knows who said something about Natalee Holloway, that is a legitimate tactic, but when Obama's supporters defend him in online polls, these are vituperative attacks on her because she is a woman, the result of a vast-right wing conspiracy, personal attacks, the result of a personality-cult.

(BTW didn't Krugman think that the way to drive down gas prices was to tax it?)

Obama's wins didn't matter because
1. She got more delegates.
2. She got the bigger states.
3. They were all in red states.
4. They were in states where the African-American community is large.
5. They were caucuses.
6. It is a state that Jesse Jackson won

She won't acknowledge that her Iraq vote or her Iran vote was a mistake, but touts her experience gained while making these non-mistakes. She refuses to acknowledge Obama's wins or congratulate him for it, but accuses his followers of being vituperative.
To me Hillary just seems like a poor man's Rove.

Posted by: middlerd | February 13, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

jes991, my dear, sen. obama's supporters have no fear of his debating sen. clinton. she is an organized, intelligent workhorse debater.he is one of those few who can speak contemporaneously and in a motivating and brilliant way. not many are blessed w/the ability. it can be honed and developed, but i believe you're born w/it. and he has it.

Posted by: frieda406 | February 13, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

gerry1 wrote: CHANGE - this wonderful word. I have no doubt there will be change, the problem is will it be for the good or the bad?
The obnoxious comments made about Hilary Clinton are not new, no change there! They appear ROVEITE.
...................

I'm not going to get all deep into my reply because I'm not so sure about your sincerity or motivation, but...

-Change is what you make it to be. You aren't helpless.

-The "obnoxious" comments here about Hillary may not be as "ROVEITE" as they're indicative of many people's belief the Clinton Machine is Rove Jr., plus an ever-expanding sentiment among the population such politics need to be filed in the "What used to be and didn't work" folder.

-Your worry of whether change will be "for the good or for the bad" has more to do with you than you apparently think it does. You aren't a victim of change unless you think you are.

-As a man more wise than me once rightly advised, "You have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Having bothered to reply, still I'm not convinced your comments weren't without ulterior motives. But I figured I'd give myself a try, anyway.

Posted by: binkynh | February 13, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"I wish everyone on these boards had health care.

I mean that sincerely.

After seeing some of the posts here, its clear the plan has got to include coverage for mental health care as well..."

svreader, I hope that you have an employer provided Health Insurance, because if not, a Hillary administration will garnish your salary to pay for health insurance which it will make no attempt to make more affordable. That will mean less or no money for frivolous stuff like you know, food, clothes etc.
Of course then a shrink may not be a problem for you

Posted by: middlerd | February 13, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

I want to know why Hillary won't release her income tax forms. I want to know how much money Bill has been getting from the gangsters he has been hanging around with in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and I don't mean Borat.I want to know what Chelsea did for the 21 year old superdelegate. It looks like this publication won't let me repeat Penn Jillette's joke that he has been telling about Hillary in today's NYTIMES in Maureen Dowd's column under "A Flawed Feminist Test".

Posted by: majorteddy | February 13, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Reading the previous posts one has to ponder why the Obama supporters are so afraid for their candidate to debate Clinton? Becuase that's what it looks like, real fear. If they truly think that he is the best candidate for President, then they should welcome the opportunity for him to debate one-on-one with Hillary. But, perhaps their real fear is that he can't go toe-to-toe with Hillary and win the debate. They would prefer that he run away because they don't think that he can win a fair fight.

Posted by: jes991 | February 13, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

CHANGE - this wonderful word. I have no doubt there will be change, the problem is will it be for the good or the bad?
The obnoxious comments made about Hilary Clinton are not new, no change there! They appear ROVEITE.

Posted by: gerry1 | February 13, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Just because you don't like Hillary doesn't mean you are a misogynist. I'm a 33 year old woman and would love to have a woman president. Just not THAT woman.

Politics ends up being deeply personal. I personally disagree with her conduct and with the slash-and-burn politics of the Clintons. Even if I agreed with her policies, her way of communicating and working with others completely turns me off. The righteous indignation that the Clintons continually exhibit, mixed with their ability to lie so effortlessly and stay loyal to fundraisers and supporters who are obviously corrupt or wrong, really rubs me the right way.

I hope it is a race between McCain and Obama. And for those of you threatening to vote for McCain rather than Obama, go for it. Finally we could have a clean, honest race of two moderate and bipartisan candidates rather than another partisan bloodbath. I can't wait!

Posted by: hillmannic | February 13, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

good points, bisimon.
I don't think Obama's the greatest thing since sliced bread and I really believe most his supporters agree w/ me. The thing about him is he's honest.
Some posters write about where's the beef. IMO, its our resposiblity as Americans and voters to find out. Go to the candidates website, shoot, go WaPo's politics page if you want to know where Barack/Hillary stand.

Posted by: priceisright | February 13, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 13, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

The following is from a blog on The New Republic, which is (unlike the above-quoted WorldNetNews.com, not a rightwingnut cyberrag). Just imagine the attack ads the McCain camp could spin this into:

The Open and Shut Case Against Hillary Clinton, by James Kirchick

A key component of Hillary Clinton's campaign message is that she would be tougher on foreign policy than Barack Obama. She has spent a lifetime constructing this hawkish image (see Mike's excellent piece from last year on the formation of Hillary's views on the exercise of American power), in full knowledge that she would have to neutralize fears of her being a radical peacenik if she ever wished to make a serious run for president. Remember last August (how can you forget?) when she chided Barack Obama as "irresponsible and naive" for saying he would meet with America's enemies?

If there is only one article that you read today -- or this week -- make it Debra Burlingame's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. It concerns the pardon that President Clinton handed out to 16 members of FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group that was resonsible for a string of armed robberies as well as 146 bombings that killed 9 people and injured hundreds in its quixotic fight for independence from the United States. Some 25 years before another, far more devastating terrorist attack on Lower Manhattan, FALN planted a bomb in the Fraunces Tavern restaurant which detonated during lunch-hour, killing 4 and injuring 60, it's most infamous and deadly attack.

This was truly the sleaziest of Clinton's pardons (which is saying something). But it lacked the glitz and intrigue of the Marc Rich pardon, and perhaps for that reason, it is among the less notorious. But the FALN pardon was indisputably the worst. Rich, after all, was just another example of money corrupting politics. The FALN pardon was far worse; it represented nothing less than the surrender of American honor and prestige to terrorists for political gain. Its effect -- in the midst of the African embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, Khobar Towers et. al. -- was to confirm Osama bin Laden's declaration two years later that the United States was a "weak horse." The U.S. Sentencing Commission, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Attorney all opposed the pardon. Even the terrorists themselves -- who, after all, did not recognize the legal jurisdiction of the United States (the reason why they waged war against it) -- did not request the pardon.

How does Hillary fit into all of this? Well, she is the reason -- the only reason -- that the pardon was ever granted. She had a senate race to win, after all, in a state with over 1 million Spanish-speaking voters. Characteristic of White House thinking at the time was an email sent by an adviser concluding that the pardons would be "fairly easy to accomplish and will have a positive impact among strategic communities in the U.S. (read, voters)." One can already imagine the attack ads that the McCain campaign and the RNC are devising right now, if they haven't produced them already. God forbid Hillary wins the nomination, they will be a welcome addition to the public discussion about who Hillary Clinton is and what ultimately drives her, lest anyone genuinely believe she's in this because "It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together." I should admit at this point that I've been largely ambivalent about the Democratic primary, and have never understood the Hillary-hatred that drives the right. But, after reading Burlingame's piece, how can anyone trust the Clintons in power? To use one of Hillary's rhetorical flourishes when she questioned the honesty of General David Petraeus last year, that this woman would claim to be tougher than Barack Obama in dealing with America's Islamist enemies when she and her husband sold out the country and its honor to a bunch of two-bit, Hispanic terrorists "requires the willing suspension of disblief."

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 13, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

drankland wrote: Have you watched her El Paso speech? Absolutely surreal -- some of the best performance art I've seen in years. The woman is off her head.

Nobody is objecting to voting for a woman. We just don't want to vote for THAT woman.
.................

Performance art--that's it! I watched part of that speech in re-run form and it appeared Hillary was trying to feign inspirational ala Barack Obama; but her effort struck me as contrived and odd, and gave me the creeps.

Where Obama receives wild applause quite spontaneously, Hillary appeared to beg for it and when she managed to elicit approximate excitement she'd stand there grinning as if she'd just won an Academy Award, then proceed with her predictable "You know... you know..." script to make it look like she had everyone in the palm of her hand and people needed some calming down from their utterly low-level reverie!

Jeepers, no wonder why Clinton's obsessing about more debates with Obama--it's the only forum where she has a shot in hell!

Posted by: binkynh | February 13, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to all of you Hillary supporters, but for me, the decision to dislike Hillary (and bill along with her) happened for me before the turn of the century. Sometime between the impeachment and Pardon-gate. Her moving into my state and talking about her tough senate election battles (where she ran basically unopposed) didn't do any thing to win me back to her camp. These decisions have nothing to do with her sex.

Now I am slightly confused as to what this Aruba girl has to do with Hillary deciding to "forgive" msnbc, but imho, her disappearance got insane media attention from way too many news outlets.

and back to the hillary supporters...maybe you're heroine will "find her voice" again, she seems to have left it in NH.

come on hillary, show me the tears!
oh wait...is that sexist?

ps. did chelsea ever comment publicly about this slander against her? Well, maybe slander is too harsh a word...for a remark to be considered slanderous, it probably has to be untrue. Maybe chelsea should go out and get a real job...or does she have an actual position on hillary's staff besides smiling and looking pretty? Either way, she is a grown woman and takes an active part in the campaign, making her fair game for the media. As hillary would say, if she can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: sassooni | February 13, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I see right through those shady Clintons. Hillary Clinton being upset over some pundit is straight up laughable, and I didn't believe for a second she was a mother protecting her cub. Hillary's skin is waay too thick for such BS. But if I'm wrong, one can only imagine the furor that went down after Bill humiliated their daughter when getting nabbed shoving a cigar case in the vagina of a 20-something intern.

I know it's been 8 years, but I can still smell the stench.

Posted by: Sluggy | February 13, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"How different is Barak when he voted (when he votes) with his party 96.5% of the time? Whats the change? Please - someone tell me what this big change is going to be? A younger person - a black person - what? Where's the beef? Since I support Hillary, I am too old and decrepid to figure out for myself."

If I'm not mistaken, the Obama & Clinton records are almost perfectly matched. Two glaring differences I'm aware of are:

Sen Clinton's vote to support the Bush admin's policy of labelling parts of the Iranian gov't as terrorist groups, which may amount to tacit approval to use force against them. Obama had left for the day, having been told the vote would not happen that day.

Then, yesterday, Sen Obama voted against giving retroactive immunity to telecom businesses for facilitating US spying on US citizens - this is an expansion of FISA to allow the gov't to surveil US citizens without warrants. Clinton missed the vote to campaign in TX.

In my mind, those are prime examples of why a person should not vote for Clinton (giving further permission for Bush admin warmongering) and for Obama (curtailing US unwarranted surveilance on US citizens).

I suppose some folks think such things don't matter.

Posted by: bsimon | February 13, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

gasmonkey writes
"Hey bsimon, what makes you think anyone needs you "translating?" Do you really imagine you know more than the rest of us?"

If you disagree with the post, feel free to address the points made. At this point, you've left them unrefuted, which implies you find nothing to challenge. You're welcome.

Posted by: bsimon | February 13, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

In my book, better the devil (As people are characterizing Hillary) you know than the angel (Obama) you don't. There are so many nuances and twists to politicians and politics.. We will start to see a lot of dirt, the dirt dossier for Clinton has been open for so long, there's nothing new to surprise us with. Wait until Karl Rove releases his dossier on Obama - ONLY then will you all realize what it is like to have to work under the stress of that kind of attack. I am amazed at the viciousness of some of the writers endorsing the vitriol against Hillary and her daughter. Yes, after 8 years in the White House one would think she is insane to run again for office, but look at it this way, she's insane enough because she strongly believes she's equipped to do some things right. Obama is good, he needs some time, perhaps another 6-10 years to get his personality and poise to the point of handling the rigors of that kind of scrutiny.

Posted by: msseelam | February 13, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

In my book, better the devil (As people are characterizing Hillary) you know than the angel (Obama) you don't. There are so many nuances and twists to politicians and politics.. We will start to see a lot of dirt, the dirt dossier for Clinton has been open for so long, there's nothing new to surprise us with. Wait until Karl Rove releases his dossier on Obama - ONLY then will you all realize what it is like to have to work under the stress of that kind of attack. I am amazed at the viciousness of some of the writers endorsing the vitriol against Hillary and her daughter. Yes, after 8 years in the White House one would think she is insane to run again for office, but look at it this way, she's insane enough because she strongly believes she's equipped to do some things right. Obama is good, he needs some time, perhaps another 6-10 years to get his personality and poise to the point of handling the rigors of that kind of scrutiny.

Posted by: msseelam | February 13, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Have you watched her El Paso speech? Absolutely surreal -- some of the best performance art I've seen in years. The woman is off her head.

Nobody is objecting to voting for a woman. We just don't want to vote for THAT woman.

Posted by: drankland | February 13, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

How different is Barak when he voted (when he votes) with his party 96.5% of the time? Whats the change? Please - someone tell me what this big change is going to be? A younger person - a black person - what? Where's the beef? Since I support Hillary, I am too old and decrepid to figure out for myself. So come on oamanites, show me the money.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 13, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey bsimon, what makes you think anyone needs you "translating?" Do you really imagine you know more than the rest of us?

Posted by: gasmonkey | February 13, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

The more I hear about lunch-dates with Chelsea for 21yr old super-delegates from WI, the more I wonder whether Shuster was on to something. Sure it's not "pimping out" in a seal-the-deal fashion, but it's more like offering star wars convention delegates dates with princess leah. There is something more appealing in that than a phone call from John Kerry. Sure he might make a more experienced political argument, but imagining him in a gold bikini still gives me nightmares.

I don't think the tactics should be in question because they are legitimate and expected campaigning under the circumstances. The only tactics that are to blame are from the DNC for giving these previously unknown super-delegates instant star power that they are not used to and are not likely to use wisely. The answer, Dr. Dean, is to respect the voters by removing this easily corruptable back-door of super-delegates from the process. It's not your fault it's like this, but we really need an answer that is fair.

MSNBC will get their debate because it's free advertising. The 2-day boycott of the debate was also free advertising. She seems to be spending her campaign money on negative ads, which is not a good tactic in this election. People want to vote for something and will not be tricked again into voting their fears.

Posted by: grimmix | February 13, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

This debate can't be "back on" when it was never off. Hillary never intended to not attend--she was just hoping to get more traction out of the "pimping out" bit than she got as the issue just sort of fizzled out rather quickly. I don't know why more people don't see through her.

Perhaps Hillary should reprise her weepy act. She got great traction out of that one. Then again, maybe better laying off that bit for a while.

No matter what, never underestimate the depth of the Clinton bag of tricks.

Posted by: binkynh | February 13, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Billary histrionics get old quickly. Politics gets ugly, and that often comes from outsiders. I'm so tired of politics by apology.

Posted by: StaggoLee | February 13, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick of the arrogance of Obama and his followers. He has said nothing of substance. I hate to say it but I may HAVE to vote McCain.

Posted by: alloraca | February 13, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

When the Clinton's tried to disparage Obama's win in South Carolina because of his race Obama responded by winning Nebraska, Maine, North Dakota, Washington, and Minnesota, States with a less than 10% African American population. When an email somehow "surrepticiously" was sent to Jews across America alleging Obama was a Moslem who was anti-Israel Obama responded by winning the majority of Jewish votes in every single State except New York. When the Clinton's tried to dismiss Obama's appeal to working class people and White Americans Obama further responded by winning Virginia and Maryland and not only the working class and White vote but split the female vote with Clinton. Now Clinton, after playing the race card, the religion card, and the class card, is trying to pit Hispanic Americans against Obama in Texas. The vile, despicable Clinton's are practicing the art of gutter politics and in doing so are not only tearing Obama down they are tearing the Democratic party apart. The American people need to express their disgust with the politics of divisiveness and polarization. That kind of politics will not solve the problems we face with our economy, health care, the environment, immigration, and foreign affairs. I hope the voters in Texas and Ohio will vote for the candidate who most emphasizes the better side of our humanity and who is running an uplifting campaign of ALL Americans working together and that candidate is Barack Obama. Make your voices heard! VOTE!

Posted by: amitai | February 13, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama had a good day yesterday but the hate-filled reactions from his "followers" is a little hard to understand.

I know a lot of moderate democrats (I am one) for who the war is not the central issue of importance and who aren't totally sold on Obama if he gets the nod at the convention.

The sexist comments from his loyalists aren't encouraging anyone.

Posted by: ghokee | February 13, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

That's the best dirt people can come up with? Obama's pastor said something stupid back in 2005?!

Posted by: jamesbeckmeyer | February 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I wish everyone on these boards had health care.

I mean that sincerely.

After seeing some of the posts here, its clear the plan has got to include coverage for mental health care as well...

Posted by: svreader | February 13, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Why is a position against Hillary Clinton automatically assumed to be sexism and misogyny? I'm a 48 year old woman and all I see when I look at Hillary is a person whose ambition gets in the way of her good sense.

I think her claim to have 20 years (or whatever) in politics is disingenuous when it mainly consists of being first lady to the Governor of Arkansas and the President of the United States. She is a one term senator from a state that she carpetbagged to get elected. Give me a break!

Posted by: greatscott47 | February 13, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Hey, is there some kind of news article about a preacher talking about Natalee Holloway? I haven't read anything about it anywhere. Gee, I wish I knew about that sort of thing.

Posted by: awiseman1 | February 13, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Hate for Hillary from some of the people offering comments is really saddening. Why is this happening? Does not anybody see a brilliant, courageous and forward thinking politician who is on top of the issues.

Makes me want to vote McCain.

Posted by: lskjf | February 13, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Who digs up this stuff? Are "Clintonites" that desperate, irate, and evil that they have to succumb to dirty tactics and rumors? Who cares what some preacher said in 2005? This is 2008. Besides, he is not Barack Obama. Can Barack or Hillary police everything that their friends, associates, family members, store clerks, paper boys, etc. say within their right of "Freedom of Speech?" Come on people, let's stick with the issues at hand--economics, foreign policy, education, and health care.

Posted by: jfaul006 | February 13, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I keep my fingers crossed for Hillary. Maybe the perception of her changes, now that she is no longer the perceived front-runner.

The amazing thing is that Obama managed to score so much victories by producing huge amounts of hot air! Can ANYBODY tell me in Obama's words, what he will do to make change happen? I frankly have no idea what he will do, if elected. But I am quite sure that everybody (save Obama himself) will be deeply disappointed.

And to all you people out there who claim that Hillary is only in it for the power. Do you honestly think that Obama or Huckabee or McCain, well, maybe Huckabee, are in this race because they have altruistic notions of how to make the world a nice and better place? They all want power, they all will tell you whatever it takes to get your vote and if anybody thinks otherwise, then he/she is incredibly naive.

Posted by: flosstoss | February 13, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was for the caucus voting in casinos in Nevada...before she was against them.

She was for Michigan delegates not being counted for acting in opposition to the Democratic party...before she left her name on the ballot and then later said the votes should be counted, since she got them all.

She was for Florida delegates not being seated, again in compliance with the DNC, until she again tried to change the rules after the game had begun, and demanded they be counted...in the name of "democracy".

She was for the MSNBC Ohio debate, before she saw a chance to play the "victim" card yet again, after Shuster rightfully observed the Clintons work Chelsea like a child worker in a Thai Nike factory.

Then she was against appearing in the MSNBC debate, until she saw the math that she needs to win approx 65% of all remaining delegates just to catch Obama...

Now she is back in the debate...

She flips more than the pancakes at IHOP.

Ready on Day One? The problem is she has pitched her tent at the corner of Incompetent and FUBAR for the 300 days preceding Day One.

Posted by: filmex | February 13, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Normally I would heed my own adivce simply to ignore the noise, but why are people posting and re-posting the Holloway story from last month?

Is that code for: Total desperation?

Posted by: Goombay | February 13, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It looks like the Billary machine is going negative both with her tv ads and with her supporters, looking for anything negative to say about Obama.

Tsk tsk.... can we say sore losers?

Posted by: rkirk | February 13, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Why was MSNBC out of line for expressing the opinion in the first place? If the Clintons want to be treated with kid gloves, maybe they should wear kid gloves themselves first before swinging at people. Bill and Hillary are pathetic people; this country wants change, and she isn't it.

Posted by: sxmcpherson | February 13, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

ermias.kifle,
People actually read the WorldNetDaily? Seriously, you think that the amount of media coverage attractive, young, white women receive when victims of crimes isn't disproportionate across demographics? Has Jim Crow been dead 50 years? Does Israel allow Palestinians to vote? Did Obama say any of this? What is your point? Better question, why am I paying attention to your drivel?

Posted by: BlahBlahBlah314 | February 13, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Desperation is unappealing in both a candidate and her supporters.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 13, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama's pastor disses Natalee Holloway
'White girl goes off and gives it up' in Aruba, preacher pal says

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 27, 2008
6:49 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friend and spiritual adviser trashed the memory of a missing and presumed dead American teenage girl, according to church publications reviewed by WND.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial minister of Obama's church in Chicago, cited the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba in complaining about what he sees as the media's bias in covering white victims of crime over black victims.

"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur, Sudan, in the Congo and in Sub-Saharan Africa. That doesn't make news," Wright said in the August 2005 edition of Trumpet Magazine, a publication of his Trinity United Church of Christ.

But, "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!" he added. "Maybe I am missing something!"

In the same 2005 church publication, Wright suggested "white America" had the 9/11 attacks coming, while calling for business "divestment from Israel," which he refers to as a "racist" state along with America.

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," he wrote on page 7. "White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared,' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Obama says he is "proud" of Wright and values their 20-year friendship.

Though Wright has nurtured Obama's political career as a close adviser and mentor, the Democrat presidential hopeful says they don't agree on everything. Wright married Obama and baptized his daughters.

In the November/December 2007 issue of Trumpet, Wright sang the praises of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described whites as "blue-eyed devils" and Jews as "bloodsuckers."

"He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest," Wright said. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience."

Wright then held Farrakhan up as a pillar of "integrity."

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics," he continued. "His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Farrakhan's photo is splashed across the cover of the church magazine, which gushes "the Minister truly epitomized greatness."

On Nov. 2, 2007, Wright presented Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement" award during a Trumpet gala held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago. The tribute included a three-and-a-half minute video lionizing "the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan."

"For his commitment to truth, education and leadership, we honor Minister Louis Farrakhan with the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award," the video announces.

Last week, Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan, but did not distance himself from Wright or disavow his praise for Farrakhan

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 13, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Every time I read the comments on a Wapo message board, I'm stunned by the Hillary bashing. If Obama had been subjected to the degree of racism matching the sexism/misogyny that his supporters have heaped on Hillary Clinton, he would have conceded weeks ago.

At the Wapo, racism is forbidden in the news coverage and on the opinion pages, as well as the message boards, but Wapo continues to accept blatant sexist/misogynist attacks against Hillary Clinton.

Her strength of character, courage, faith, and wisdom see her through and when she wins the general election next November, the United States will enter a new era of peace and prosperity.

Read more at http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2008/02/sexism-and-misogyny-fuel-rants-of.html

Posted by: ichief | February 13, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Clinton needs the debates because she doesn't have much money. Why do people think she will be a better President from Day One when she has run a terrible campaign... spending too much money, making poor judgements about her campaign staff (she has fired two), and not being well organized which is the reason she can't win caucus states. She also tells us not to hope. That does not show good leadership. I think if we look to how they are running their campaigns, we see that Obama really is the better manager, the better leader and has far better judgement. Besides he inspires and he doesn't pull all those dirty divisive tricks that she does. Obama is really showing himself to be better prepared for Day One than her.

Posted by: goldie2 | February 13, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

sarasotan: I'd much rather my elected official make an effort to know what issues affect me, then have rattle on about details we've heard 20 times over.

Listen, there isn't a soul on the planet who doesn't know where these two candidates stand. Why waste our time with yet more debates, just so Hillary can try to win some debate points.

Posted by: BABucher | February 13, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Reality check for all who are trying to spin this into another Hillary is evil thing. Hillary challenged Obama to five debates long before the latest caucuses and primaries. His response was "I can't debate because I want to get to know the voters." In a democracy, is it not better if the voters get to know him ... and what better forum for that than a debate (instead of reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter).

Posted by: sarasotan | February 13, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Never mind the negatives on either Democratic Primary candidate. JUST COUNT THE VOTES.

Posted by: yamamah | February 13, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's got one big problem that they just can't get past. The "CLINTON'S" have Zero Credibility , and every time they try to go negative or point fingers at another person for any reason , they have four fingers pointing right back at them.

She can go negative all she wants , she can send Bill the attack dog out there , and the end result is , the more they use these tactics , the more it hurts her.

See the Clinton's are in this thing for one reason and one reason only ( Personal Power ). The American people can clearly see that , and that's why she will never be President.

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 13, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Hillary realized that shunning a debate when she's running an ad in Wisconsin that disses Obama for not debating her there, looks pretty hypocritical.

War monger Hillary hypocritical? Not possible.

Posted by: LouiseFletcher | February 13, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama's pastor disses Natalee Holloway
'White girl goes off and gives it up' in Aruba, preacher pal says

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 27, 2008
6:49 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friend and spiritual adviser trashed the memory of a missing and presumed dead American teenage girl, according to church publications reviewed by WND.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial minister of Obama's church in Chicago, cited the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba in complaining about what he sees as the media's bias in covering white victims of crime over black victims.

"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur, Sudan, in the Congo and in Sub-Saharan Africa. That doesn't make news," Wright said in the August 2005 edition of Trumpet Magazine, a publication of his Trinity United Church of Christ.

But, "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!" he added. "Maybe I am missing something!"

In the same 2005 church publication, Wright suggested "white America" had the 9/11 attacks coming, while calling for business "divestment from Israel," which he refers to as a "racist" state along with America.

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," he wrote on page 7. "White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared,' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Obama says he is "proud" of Wright and values their 20-year friendship.

Though Wright has nurtured Obama's political career as a close adviser and mentor, the Democrat presidential hopeful says they don't agree on everything. Wright married Obama and baptized his daughters.

In the November/December 2007 issue of Trumpet, Wright sang the praises of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described whites as "blue-eyed devils" and Jews as "bloodsuckers."

"He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest," Wright said. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience."

Wright then held Farrakhan up as a pillar of "integrity."

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics," he continued. "His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Farrakhan's photo is splashed across the cover of the church magazine, which gushes "the Minister truly epitomized greatness."

On Nov. 2, 2007, Wright presented Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement" award during a Trumpet gala held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago. The tribute included a three-and-a-half minute video lionizing "the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan."

"For his commitment to truth, education and leadership, we honor Minister Louis Farrakhan with the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award," the video announces.

Last week, Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan, but did not distance himself from Wright or disavow his praise for Farrakhan

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 13, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Have we had enough drama yet?

Posted by: SarahBB | February 13, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama's pastor disses Natalee Holloway
'White girl goes off and gives it up' in Aruba, preacher pal says

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 27, 2008
6:49 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friend and spiritual adviser trashed the memory of a missing and presumed dead American teenage girl, according to church publications reviewed by WND.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial minister of Obama's church in Chicago, cited the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba in complaining about what he sees as the media's bias in covering white victims of crime over black victims.

"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur, Sudan, in the Congo and in Sub-Saharan Africa. That doesn't make news," Wright said in the August 2005 edition of Trumpet Magazine, a publication of his Trinity United Church of Christ.

But, "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!" he added. "Maybe I am missing something!"

In the same 2005 church publication, Wright suggested "white America" had the 9/11 attacks coming, while calling for business "divestment from Israel," which he refers to as a "racist" state along with America.

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," he wrote on page 7. "White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared,' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Obama says he is "proud" of Wright and values their 20-year friendship.

Though Wright has nurtured Obama's political career as a close adviser and mentor, the Democrat presidential hopeful says they don't agree on everything. Wright married Obama and baptized his daughters.

In the November/December 2007 issue of Trumpet, Wright sang the praises of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described whites as "blue-eyed devils" and Jews as "bloodsuckers."

"He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest," Wright said. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience."

Wright then held Farrakhan up as a pillar of "integrity."

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics," he continued. "His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Farrakhan's photo is splashed across the cover of the church magazine, which gushes "the Minister truly epitomized greatness."

On Nov. 2, 2007, Wright presented Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement" award during a Trumpet gala held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago. The tribute included a three-and-a-half minute video lionizing "the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan."

"For his commitment to truth, education and leadership, we honor Minister Louis Farrakhan with the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award," the video announces.

Last week, Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan, but did not distance himself from Wright or disavow his praise for Farrakhan


Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

While the media is ready to coronate Obama here is a thought.

An interesting note, even though it mathematically impossible for Huckabee to win, people still vote for him. So the key question will people vote for the individual who has momentum or will they vote for the individual whom they believe in.

So Is Barack Obama Inevitable?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1736

.

Posted by: jeffboste | February 13, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary Clinton's campaign said
yesterday that she will show up for the Cleveland face-off against Barack Obama after all."

Translation:
"We've tried to milk some sympathy by overplaying the Shuster comments, but it hasn't yielded much, therefore we have to appear for the debate; particularly since we recently demanded more debates."

meta-translation:
"We can't afford to pass up any chance we have at getting some press before being utterly embarrassed in upcoming events."

Posted by: bsimon | February 13, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

This is good, perhaps, for Hillary to go forward with this. She will need a stellar performance, with challenges like these:

Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

Posted by: davidmwe | February 13, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company